In Vitro Research Reproducibility : Keeping up High Standards
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PERSPECTIVE published: 10 December 2019 doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01484 In Vitro Research Reproducibility: Keeping Up High Standards Cordula Hirsch 1 and Stefan Schildknecht 2* 1 Particles-Biology Interactions Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2 In vitro Toxicology and Biomedicine, Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany Concern regarding the reproducibility of observations in life science research has emerged in recent years, particularly in view of unfavorable experiences with preclinical in vivo research. The use of cell-based systems has increasingly replaced in vivo research and the application of in vitro models enjoys an ever-growing popularity. To avoid repeating past mistakes, high standards of reproducibility and reliability must be established and maintained in the field ofin vitro biomedical research. Detailed guidance documenting the appropriate handling of cells has been authored, but was received with quite disparate perception by different branches in biomedical research. In that regard, we intend to raise awareness of the reproducibility issue among scientists in all branches of contemporary life science research and their individual responsibility in this matter. We have herein compiled a selection of the most susceptible steps of everyday in Edited by: vitro cell culture routines that have the potential to influence cell quality and recommend Sebastian Hoffmann, Seh consulting + services, Germany practices to minimize the likelihood of poor cell quality impairing reproducibility with Reviewed by: modest investment of time and resources. Zhichao Liu, National Center for Toxicological Keywords: cell culture models, reproducibility, toxicology, good cell culture practice, new approach methods (NAM) Research (FDA), United States Albert P. Li, In Vitro ADMET Laboratories, INTRODUCTION United States *Correspondence: A survey published in Nature in 2016 (Baker, 2016) evaluating questionnaires on reproducibility in Stefan Schildknecht life science research disclosed not only the difficulties researchers have reproducing experiments [email protected] from other laboratories, but also from their own. Even more surprising was the fact that awareness of this problem was widespread within the scientific community. The inability to reproduce study Specialty section: results, often inherent in observations from academic laboratories, are usually uncovered not This article was submitted to without relevant delay, e.g. when potential therapies that are based on these findings transition from Predictive Toxicology, preclinical testing to the far more stringent conditions of clinical trials (Collins and Tabak, 2014). a section of the journal Needless to say, the societal costs associated with this problem are intolerable (Freedman et al., Frontiers in Pharmacology 2015). The controversial matter of insufficient reproducibility was, in fact, communicated openly Received: 21 August 2019 in oncology and cardiovascular biology (Begley and Ellis, 2012; Errington et al., 2014; Libby, 2015). 15 November 2019 Accepted: In toxicology, which may better reflect the background of most readers of this journal, awareness Published: 10 December 2019 of this problem has emerged only gradually in association with insufficientin vivo reproducibility Citation: (Kilkenny et al., 2009; Voelkl et al., 2018). Such disclosures, in concert with studies indicating that Hirsch C and Schildknecht S (2019) In Vitro Research Reproducibility: in vivo data from rats and mice combined can only predict human clinical toxicology of less than Keeping Up High Standards. 50% of candidate pharmaceuticals (Olson et al., 2000), promoted a revision of several toxicologists’ Front. Pharmacol. 10:1484. opinions towards mechanistic in vitro assays from the traditional reliance on pharmacological and doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01484 toxicological in vivo animal testing. Frontiers in Pharmacology | www.frontiersin.org 1 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 1484 Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-10e6snhkxwr5q6 Hirsch and Schildknecht In Vitro Reproducibility Crisis IN VITRO MODELS IN LIFE SCIENCE particularly in the field of in vitro research. In nanotoxicology, RESEARCH in vitro toxicity assays are the most frequently used approaches to assess potential hazardous effects of engineered nanomaterials A major concern raised by researchers in different fields of (Guggenheim et al., 2018). This is mainly due to the fact that biomedicine was how a cell culture model, often not even researchers early on realized that the immense number of newly originating from the organ of interest, could provide information developed nanomaterials would make it impossible to perform about multilayer processes and pathological outcomes in classical in vivo animal tests due to the amount of time, money, humans. In this context, it is important to understand that and number of animals required (Hartung and Sabbioni, 2011; application-oriented fields, such as pharmacology or toxicology, Schrurs and Lison, 2012; Guggenheim et al., 2018). Nanomaterials operate to a large extent on the fundamental progress made exhibit unique properties due to their small size that make them in biomedical research over the past decades and exploit suitable for many different applications. However, these same the wealth of information generated about cellular stress particle properties often interfere with experimental test systems pathways and molecular processes. This paradigm shift was (Wörle-Knirsch et al., 2006; Laurent et al., 2012; Bohmer et al., largely shaped by the US National Research Council’s (NRC) 2018). Insufficient nanoparticle characterization, unidentified strategic plan to modernize methods for testing environmental interference with test systems, and poor definition of controls toxicants (Natl. Res. Counc., 2007). The approach envisions the for monitoring assay performance led to several contradictory identification of molecular targets and pathways that are linked observations in the early days of nanotoxicology research (Hirsch with a toxicological outcome and fosters the establishment and et al., 2011). However, this shaky start allowed nanoparticle validation of high-throughput new approach methods (NAM) toxicology to emerge as one of the fields in which the aspect of for quantitative assessment of target perturbations (Collins et al., adequate reproducibility of in vitro studies gained appropriate 2008; U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 2009). A key element in the attention, and consequently, allowed an open discussion of NRC’s strategy is its distinct focus on the quantitative detection this topic. An exemplary illustration of this transparency is a of perturbations of defined molecular events [Key Events, (KE)], publication by Elliott and colleagues (Elliott et al., 2017) assessing cellular stress pathways, and marker signatures that are predictive the reproducibility of MTS-tetrazolium reduction assay results for a specific outcome (Adeleye et al., 2015). The experimental in as indicators of cell viability in an international inter-laboratory vitro model of choice, therefore, needs to express the pathway comparison study with five independent laboratories. Strict or mechanism of interest and also needs to allow quantitative standard operating procedures (SOP) were employed using a determination of the disturbance caused by the stressors. In sophisticated 96-well plate design that allowed detection of up this regard, the concept of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) to seven parameters of assay performance, including accuracy was designed as a conceptual framework for the sequential of multi-channel pipetting, cell handling/cell growth, and organization of the molecular initiating event (MIE), connected instrument performance (i.e. plate reader issues) (Rösslein et al., with the adverse outcome (AO) via a series of KEs (Ankley et al., 2015). A549 cells were purchased from two independent, credible, 2010). The AOP concept fosters the development or selection accepted commercial sources and both, seemingly identical, cell of assays allowing a quantitative detection of individual KEs, cultures were used in all labs. Even under such strict conditions, thereby enabling the definition of threshold levels (Leist et al., EC50 values of the two A549 cultures upon CdSO4 treatment 2017; Terron et al., 2018). AOP also represents an organizational differed by a factor of two in all laboratories. In the course of tool for identification of additive or synergistic effects that might these investigations, cell line authentication was discovered to be occur through activation of identical or different KEs by two or one of the main factors influencing assay results. Short tandem more compounds. The stringent demand for precise quantitative repeat sequencing revealed a partial chromosome deletion in one and qualitative information required for AOPs illustrates the of the cell cultures. Technical aspects also contributed to result explicit necessity for experimental models with a high rate of variability. For example, simple cell handling steps, such as PBS reproducibility and the necessity for increased awareness of the washing, were identified to significantly change assay outcomes. reproducibility problem in all branches of life science research. This example provides a vivid illustration of the impact of seemingly trivial details and the